LAKE PLACID, N.Y. — Chris Kelly managed to skate 21 shifts for 14:35 of total ice time in the Bruins’ 4-2 victory in Game 3 of their Eastern Conference quarterfinal series with Montreal Monday night.

However, that doesn’t mean Canadiens center Scott Gomez’s hit from behind on the Boston forward wasn’t a dangerous play.

“Well, he got a penalty for interference,” Bruins head coach Claude Julien said today at the USA Rink at the Whiteface Lake Placid Olympic Center on his team’s day off. “I would say, to be honest with you, it’s a little bit of the Zdeno Chara hit on [Max] Pacioretty. [That’s] a hit that turned out badly. I think in Kelly’s case, it was interference, but I don’t think he meant to push him in the net or go head-first into the post.

“You’ve got to understand that there are parts of the game that the result of what happens is not necessarily the intention. So was it a penalty? Absolutely. I don’t think there was any intent to injure there. Thankfully, our player came out of it OK. It’s not something you like to see, and thank God he had a visor, which certainly helped take the blow away a little bit. Still, it was a very dangerous play.”

Chara’s hit on Pacioretty March 8 caused the Habs forward to suffer a fractured vertebrae and severe concussion. Kelly came out of the Gomez play a little shaken and sporting a shiner.

There have been so many controversial hits in the NHL, including in the playoffs. And that’s Julien’s main point. Had Kelly been seriously injured, or had Johnny Boychuk been incapacitated by Benoit Pouliot’s hit (he was called for charging late in the first period), there would’ve been more scrutiny of the plays the way there was with Chara’s hit and numerous ones by other players in the postseason.

Instead the league reviewed the Pouliot hit and so far found no reason for supplemental discipline. And there’s been hardly any talk about the Gomez play.

“[That’s] a hit that turned out badly…I don’t think he meant to push him in the net or go head-first into the post.”

I’ll try to translate better: There are 2 things. The intention of a hit, and the result of the hit. In both cases (Chara & Gomes) the intention was NOT to injure the opponent. Obviously the results of the 2 hits aren’t the same. But Juliens point is simple: Neither Chara nor Gomes intended to injure an opponent.

Hope this helps.

Now maybe you can see this isn’t an insult to the Habs, it’s acknowledging that Gomes didn’t intend to hurt Kelly with the hit, but it was worth a 2 min penalty.

Let’s not get back into the blame game with the Chara hit… please. It’s exhausting. Everyone has their opinion, and we all agree it sucks that it happened; so let’s keep it at that.

I have less of a problem with Julien than I do with some of the players showing up every night. When the confidence is there, the B’s function on all cylinders and absolutely demolish most teams. But most of the time, at least a few players seem shaky and don’t make good decisions with the puck.

Also, here’s my assessment of the goals the other night, just for Alex:

Goal 1: Krejci hits a perfect one-timer on the cross-ice pass from Bergeron. Price has zero chance to save that. It was in no was a “gift” from price

Goal 2: Horton takes an almost impossible angle and quickly tosses the puck off Price’s back. This sort of goal happens 100 times a year in the NHL, and you should credit Horton for being quick and impulsive with his shot. Again, in no way was it a gift from Price.

Goal 3: Price, one of the best puck-handling goalies in the league, makes a pass towards a teammate, but Recchi gets in the lane and puck carams off his skate. Peverley is in good position and taps home the puck. Price got a little lazy on this one, so perhaps it was a “gift”.

Goal 4: Empty netter, before which Subban almost slashed Kelly’s arm off. Price was on the bench. Not a gift from Price… more like a gift from Jaques Martin.

So… potentially one “gift” goal out of four. That’s a big difference between 2 or 3.

Woww julien is lost in his mind…I didnt know its was that poor and know nothing bout hockey to say the hit gomes did was the same….Stupid guy gomez didnt aim his head to the post whit is arm like Z did.
Lets see if u can won an other one whitout 2-3gift by PRICE

Gomez created interference against an opponent that was in a position to score a goal during a playoff game.

Chara on the other hand……………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
while the hated Pacioretty is still recovering one month later.

Julien has filled the dot in ways to help lightened the load on Chara and improved his team’s chances as a result….. DR Recci’s rethoriques previous to our last regular season meeting was also fabricated with a similar purpose in mind….. Recci admitted it himself after they had won the game and even said appoligically that he would be making a personal phone to DR Muddler of the Canadiens about it……. he never did.

I guess hearing Julien connecting dissimilar incidents and presenting them as one and the same must be quite irritating to the CH’ players who knows better and who are trying the to the best that they can to win a series without the help of Pacioretty….. which was the best goals/points per game ratio player for them this season.

I think that the CH without Pacioretty is on paper a lesser team than the Bruins….. any additional sources for motivation is always welcome…… hopefully Julien did just that to them.

Pouliot played 3:21 in that match. His hit is not consistent with the habs style of play, caused a power play and Jacques Martin effectively suspended him for the rest of the match.
Agree with you Aaron on the Gomez hit. It’s that makes Julien compare it to the Chara hit, he’s completely lost. So when is it going to be your clubs’ turn to fire that twit?

Agree with you on the Gomez play, Aaron, but the Pouliot hit was dangerous and a poor hockey play. I’ve seen suspensions handed out for a lot less in the playoffs, and its without doubt that Pouliot left his feet and threw his elbow with intent to injure. Glad the knuckle dragger missed his target, but discipline isn’t handed out based solely on injury. Marchand got 2 games for his boneheaded play, and Umberger was left unscathed.

All I know for sure is that if the jerseys were reversed, there’d be another criminal investigation being opened up in Montreal. But that doesn’t speak to whether or not this play was suspension-worthy, it only speaks to how INSANE some of those Habs fans are up there.